Posted November 4, 2002

Opposition Party

Thank you, Nebojsa, for another fine article, "Empire's Playground." Certainly, there are two reasons for the U.S. media link between Serbs and Baby Bush's plans for Gulf War II:

1. Serbs are evil because former President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair said so, and everyone in the US and Britain can rejoice, again, that we did the right thing by bombing Serb civilians.
2. For Baby Bush and Prime Minister Blair to bomb Iraqi civilians, to a greater extent than we have been doing for the past ten years, they feel they must equate the two civilizations (both Serbia's and Iraq's) in the public's mind.

It is indeed sad the US and Britain will repeat their war histories. Notice that Blair repeats in both wars. Which is why I say, there is not a nickel's difference between the Republican and Democrat's foreign policies. Time for a regime change? How about a third party that wins US elections?

~ Ron Kovcin, Bethel, Ohio

Nebojsa Malic replies:

It has been obvious for a long time now that Republicans and Democrats were just two wings of the War Party. Yet many people still believe that this bi-partism was established by law, and cannot bring themselves to think outside Donkey/Elephant parameters. A true opposition to the War Party would indeed be a good start.

Arm the Citizens

Regarding Steven Small's letter of October 25:

I have to disappoint you -- gun registry does not work either. As a former Soviet citizen where all guns (the only ones available were smooth bore, since the rifled guns were outlawed for non-army use completely) were not only registered, but also sold only after thorough police checks and forced memberships in "voluntary" hunting societies with yet another level of registration. All guns were fired at the manufacturing site and the bullets went to a national bore-registry too. The results? Criminals discovered very soon that it is very easy to make a bore of a smaller than hunting bore caliber using machining tools readily available at any mechanical shop. An easy two vodka bottle payment would be a typical price for a smooth bore and a three-bottle payment for a rifled one. The new bore was made so that it will precisely fit the 12 gauge hunting bore (sliding it in and out just takes several seconds) and not only you have a rifled unregistered gun, but also you can get rid of the evidence in a second! And that is using 1960s technology! Imagine what can you do today!

The whole idea that regulations and registries and checks can change human nature and rid us of few bad people is naive and childish. It never worked and never will work. In the meantime, the recent sniper tragedy happened (and this is no accident) within counties with very strict gun control. The sniper knew that he was safe, surrounded by unarmed citizens. A natural (to my way of thinking) solution would be to arm the citizens! So they do not have to helplessly dial the police watching the escape car making its way through the parking lot, but shoot his tires at least! ...

~ Alex Chaihorsky, Reno, Nevada

Abortion

C'mon, tell the truth. Morgan Strong ["Armageddon"] is really just Stephen Schwartz trying to find another venue for all that excess black in his bile, no? Granted the Millennial Zionists are nutballs, what does that have to do with abortion? Indeed, President B-2 rushed Planned Parenthood into Afghanistan as soon as the Taliban fell, but don't tell Morgy that (unless he really is Schwartz) or he'll start praising the Prez and writing for Horowitz's hatesheet where he belongs. In critiquing the millennialists, can't you find somebody who doesn't sound as frothy as they do?

Speaking of which. Hate as I do to join the letters page chorus of praise of Raimondo, in reading his old here-here-and-here pieces about old battles with Commie fossils on the Bay, I was quite struck by how much more vigorous, vivid and brilliant his prose has become since. In articulating the fight against Empire, he has few equals, and there is none better.

~ Guido S.

Morgan Strong replies:

The thing to do is if you cannot make a coherent argument to rebut another's position just call the sons of b*tches names.

Limousine Liberals

Regarding Justin Raimondo's article "Warmongers Left and Right," October, 30 2002: while I do not agree with (what I think is) Raimondo's political position on many issues, his analysis is 100% on the mark and bravo for saying the truth as it is with no polite euphemisms. The "limousine liberals" are a type of "intellectual" more infuriating than plain-old right-winger/reactionaries (who, regardless of what one thinks of their positions, are usually rather straightforward and direct about their views and approaches). Reading this stuff one can't figure out if this type of person really believes what they write and is trying to fool him/herself into supporting the latest crusade or whether it is some sort of respectable looking lying. Regardless, the end result is always "For the good of (substitute your favorite slogan), onwards the soldiers!"

And to echo what some other folks have said, while some of the leadership of the latest antiwar march leaves something to be desired in certain departments (according to what one reads these days), they are at least doing something and they've got all sort of people interested and showing up (punks, middle-class parents, grannies, students, dads and babies, veterans, Muslims, businessmen, folks from Nebraska, etc.). More importantly , they've shown there is plenty of anger, resentment, and/or misgivings in America against this latest preemptive Iraq crusade. Most folks at the marches are probably unaware of the precise political stance of the organizers and, from what I've seen in the past, really don't care because they think the war issue is really way too important compared to what they see as adolescent pointing at dirty laundry. It's just got to be that way given the wide cross-section of people that showed up and who made an effort to come from far away and for whom it was the first protest ever (or in 30 years or so). So there is plenty of interest, lots of untapped potential, so if you think that the latest protest organizers are no good and you can do better, then don't waste time, stop sitting around, and get moving!

Regarding David Horowitz's "100,000 Communists March On Washington To Give Aid and Comfort to Saddam Hussein" (October 28, 2002), let's be fair! I believe the work is very enjoyable to read and should be sent for publication to The Onion: (1) the level of logic, argument, and treatment of reality is quite right for that sort of thing, and (2) it would get wider exposure.

~ Sohrab Ismail-Beigi

DC March

Regarding "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore" by Justin Raimondo:

I liked Justin's article on the San Francisco antiwar march; here's a comment on the DC one:

A small circle of fools thought I was a Secret Service agent as I went about shooting the protest with my digital camera, all because I had my hair wetted back (to keep it from blowing) and was wearing sunglasses. So about three or four people were pointing me out, coming up to me asking why I was filming, wanting to have my picture taken with me.

My instant reaction to them was: I drove 9 hours to be with these idiots? Two, do you really think George Bush and his cronies give a flying f*ck about us out here? That 10 or 10 billion would make the slightest different to this war? Three, that the Secret Service is the Treasury Department; they wouldn't be here at all unless George Bush was making an appearance, and last I heard Bush wasn't showing up at this particular march. And four, here's a real update, morons: Secret Service agents don't buy their sunglasses at the Dollar Shop.

~ CM, Georgia

Insults

Regarding "Warmongers Left and Right," by Justin Raimondo:

"In my last column, I wrote that I ran into Maad Abu-Ghazalah, the Libertarian Party candidate for Congress in California's Twelfth District, running against rabid warmonger Tom Lantos: 'He was trying to get a spot on the speakers' list,' I wrote, 'to no avail, of course. No Libertarians need apply.'

"I am happy to report that this is not true, that he did indeed get to speak, and I stand corrected."

Of course, if you had been at the previous demonstration organized by the IAC, on September 14, you would have seen him speak there too, interestingly enough, without identifying himself as to his party, only that he was running against Tom Lantos. I don't know if he did the same Saturday since I didn't hear him. I did see him campaigning at the rally, with a booth, passing out literature, etc.

Perhaps even you might get a chance to speak if you didn't repeatedly refer to Workers World as "Stalinoids," "Stalinophiles," or whatever other pejorative and basically juvenile insults you repeatedly hurl at them in your columns. Stick to serious criticism and you'll be taken more seriously.

You are doing a great service with your web site. Keep it up!

~ Steve Patt (not a member of Workers World, the IAC, the ANSWER coalition, or anything else for that matter), Cupertino, California

Cato

I am sending you a contribution today because I support your antiwar stance and your site is a great source of info....

But I have followed up on your info about Cato and I am not convinced that they or Reason deserve the condemnation they are receiving from your site. Not only are they good (from the libertarian point of view) on most everything else, but the bulk of their output -- including recently -- has been supportive of our antiwar and anti-interventionist position. I am referring to their reports, both print and audio. Search their site! A stray editorial by someone associated with Cato should not be used to paint Cato a bunch of warmongers which they are clearly not. They are against the war in Iraq, generally anti-interventionist and opposed to the idea of US nation-building. They believe the continuing war against Al-Qaeda is justifiable and, whether we agree or not, this is not an abdication of noninterventionist principle considering that the US was attacked.

I believe it is too much to ask for other groups who are not single-issue to share our vehemence and consistency. Attacking our allies and near-allies is no way to form a coalition for any issue. We should be encouraging them and saving the vitriol for the real interventionists. Plus, we should be letting our antiwar allies on the left know that there exists a consistent philosophy that opposes all government aggression, not solely military. For the most part, Cato and Reason represent this philosophy.

~ Philip B., Florida